About 200 years ago, the scientific community began to suspect that the Earth was a lot older than the 5800 years calculated by genealogically-inclined theologians using the Hebrew Old Testament. The debate on this subject was extensive, drawing on many lines of evidence, but was pretty well resolved in the 1940s with the discovery that nuclear fusion could power the Sun for eons. Now humanity is endowed with a view of the past reaching into the billions of years and a view of the future that is potentially at least as extensive. However, our economies are still geared to maximum exploitation and expansion, to ransacking the few remaining resources left to us. Do economists think beyond the next four or five years? Are the people that run the big corporations currently ravishing the Earth thinking that Jesus will return in power and in glory any day now to miraculously save us from our own stupid exhaustion and defilement of the planet?

From the comments already written in response to this article, we can see that the literate element in our society, at least, can transcend the small-minded, short-sighted view of the present held by the political leadership. We need leaders with a vision of Deep Time who will show us how exercising restraint in the use of energy and materials can lead ultimately to a sustainable balance between human industry and nature. The use of strategic petroleum reserves to keep the price of gas down is the nothing but craven pandering to uninformed popular opinion in support of wasteful squandering of irreplaceable resources. That this suggestion should come from a Democrat shows once again that both major parties are in thrall to the corporate globalists.

Either the Congress gets off its duff and starts impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney or we condemn future generations of Americans to putting up with the same kind of crap we've been fed for the last seven years: the lying, the aggression, the favoritism, the snooping, the runaway deficit spending, the torturing, all by a president who thinks he should be the government in a "unitary executive" state. Other presidents have tried it, but none has pushed so hard for it or had such a pusillanimous Congress of moral marshmallows enabling his career of violations, perversions, and insults against humanity, our heritage as Americans, and the our Constitution.

Every member of the Congress has pledged to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". Each can now demonstrate how seriously he takes this responsibility by the degree to which he promotes and expedites the removal of these disgraceful cretins from office.

Mr. Cheney, you can count me as a registered Republican who prays daily for your impeachment and removal from office.

Dr. Paul NEVER flip-flops or spins a response to curry favor, but always speaks to the issues in plain language, revealing the falseness of the other candidates' positions. He is gold to their cheap brass plating. He is the voice of the ideals of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution in an era of corporate-controlled mass media, uncontrolled deficit spending, and consumerism. If you want to take a stand against the corporate-controlled state now ruling over us and eroding our liberties, our resources, and our national reputation, you could do worse than support Ron Paul.

Why any nation governed by supposedly rational beings should continue to suffer under the horrendously damaging "leadership" being provided by the Executive Branch boggles the mind. Impeachment and removal are the logical and legal remedies. The fact that the Congress refuses to exercise its responsibilities in these circumstances can only be caused be a profound corruption and/or monumental incompetence.

It is no wonder that public confidence in Congress is on a par with its confidence in the Executive Branch.

As you can see from these letters, it's going to take a lot of work to convince most Salon readers that your latest foray into the issues of the day is not just more of the flim-flam you've been pedaling for years. You've made some progress, which is good, but you have a long way to go.

For starters, your probably by now ex-friends at Liberty Baptist University are not going to be happy with this statement:

The environment is constantly changing, constantly evolving.

You just used the "e" word, the verb form of "evilution"! Heavens, next thing you know you'll arrive at the corollary that the species that inhabit these constantly changing, constantly evolving environments are themselves likewise changing and evolving! You may even conclude that evidence and reason are superior to ancient Middle Eastern mythology in understanding the Earth!

You may be aware that you have possibly further alienated your former admirers at LBU by this statement:

Remember that people were clearing parts of Africa as early as 50,000 years ago with cutting and burning techniques.

50,000 years ago! That's exceeds the age of the Earth itself by a factor of 8.25, as understood by the good folks at LBU! You're gonna have some serious 'splainin' to do if you set foot on that campus again!

Seriously, I can't fully agree that wealthy people are better stewards of the Earth than the poor. The agricultural poor have traditionally achieve security in old age by producing a multitude of descendants, which ultimately leads to severe ecological damage. However, the ecological "footprint" of each poor person is relatively small. The rich may have the leisure to contemplate the glories of the natural world and work to preserve them, but if one traced the sources of their wealth, I think one would find a monstrous assault on nature at its source: depletion of minerals and fossil fuels, chemical pollution, and habitat destruction. Until wealth is redefined in terms of ecological harmony, I see this part of your argument as a pretty bandaid coving an ugly cancer.